[bxf]

I'm getting a headache...

[altopiet]

I'm getting a headache...

+1 I can't absorb al this information anymore, and it won't help to tell me to stop reading it, I'm curious by nature... but I feel that I'm going to pop something, somewhere

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Back in the olden days, when I used a fast film, I expected to see a lot of grain (the analogue equivalent of noise, I guess). Even more so if the film was pushed to the giddy heights of, say (gasp) 3200 ISO. I didn't think this detracted from the image, and it rendered a gritty feel that often added to the mood of the photograph. Now, with digital capture, I don't mind noise, as long as it has a grainy look to it (sometimes I even add "grain" via Photoshop). So, for me, the quality of the noise is more important than the "amount" of noise, per se. I find the noise on my K-5 quite pleasing, usually, but I don't make prints larger than A3. However, given the choice, I'd prefer to use a tripod and a lower ISO to keep noise to a minimum, but this is not always an option, especially for people who photograph indoor sport or concerts. I don't think it's awfully helpful to look at test pictures - we need to see if noise detracts from our own images. I won't throw up my hands in horror if I detect a bit of noise in the shadows at 100% magnification, but I have yet to receive my K-3, so I shall see what I shall see....

[rawr]

Many people even add noise back into their digital images via filters and presets, to bring into the image some of that film feel and add some 'authenticity' to an image, so yes, noise isn't always undesirable.

Otherwise, I think for astrophotography, birding, weddings, landscape - not good. For night street or a punk rock concert - the sky may be the limit for acceptable noise, if it works with the subject.

As long as it is not big lumps of splotchy noise, especially splotchy colour/chroma noise. That's just beyond the pale anywhere.

[normhead]

+1 I can't absorb al this information anymore, and it won't help to tell me to stop reading it, I'm curious by nature... but I feel that I'm going to pop something, somewhere

Just looking at nice pictures saves you from that. Over-thinking is the curse of internet forums.

[altopiet]

Just looking at nice pictures saves you from that. Over-thinking is the curse of internet forums.

You have a point Norm, if I have to look at all the pics I've taken at 100/200/300% all the time and see all the ugly noise and blotches and whatever, I'll probably go and throw my cameras in a river somewhere, and get another hobby...

EDIT: OTOH I'm really astonished at the minute detail others see in images that I can't see, I know my eye sight is not that good anymore, and my laptop probably not up to scratch, but sometimes I really can't see the fine detail they're talking about, and then I know I'll have to make sure I keep my day job...

[normhead]

You have a point Norm, if I have to look at all the pics I've taken at 100/200/300% all the time and see all the ugly noise and blotches and whatever, I'll probably go and throw my cameras in a river somewhere, and get another hobby...

EDIT: OTOH I'm really astonished at the minute detail others see in images that I can't see, I know my eye sight is not that good anymore, and my laptop probably not up to scratch, but sometimes I really can't see the fine detail they're talking about, and then I know I'll have to make sure I keep my day job...

There are times when I get all involved in detail, and then come back a half hour later and can't see what i was seeing anymore. I'm convinced, every APS-c made today exceeds just about any standard a reasonable person would apply.

On that note… this is pretty exciting…. distinct line width down to 3000 lw/ph, extinction not until close to 4000. The K5IIs was line distinct lines to 2300 lw/ph. That would be a 30% increase in resolution. Based on a 50% increase in file size, that's simply awesome. You can only get about 25% better with a D800.



If trying to determine where extinction occurs doesn't give you a headache, I'm not sure what will. But it's well over 3000 lw/ph, I'd give it more than 31 but less than 32.

I like to have 100 lw/ph vertical depth per inch when printing… this should give you a nice 30x40 print.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-05-2013 at 07:55 AM.

[rawr]

On that note… this is pretty exciting…. distinct line width down to 3000 lw/ph

Is that a K-3 result? I couldn't find any Imaging Resource tests on K-3 exposure/ resolution yet. If it is, it's pretty impressive. The D7100 only did down to about 2700 lw/ph in their tests.

[normhead]

Is that a K-3 result? I couldn't find any Imaging Resource tests on K-3 exposure/ resolution yet. If it is, it's pretty impressive. The D7100 only did down to about 2700 lw/ph in their tests.

Look down in their sample images, between the house poster and the fabric colour swatches. But the D7100 looks about the same, they have a different idea of what strong is than I do. Better to use two comparisons by the same guy... when he gets it done, he'll use the same standards on both.

[rawr]

Look down in their sample images, between the house poster and the fabric colour swatches.

Aha. Thanks, I'll have a look.

But aren't there computer programs to do those measurements?
When you throw into the mix issues of JPEG quality/sharpening/contrast, monitor quality and settings, plus less than perfect eyes like mine, doing it by eye on screen (or even off print samples) seems very imprecise.

[Barry Pearson]

Interesting results. The K-3 certainly comes up looking cleaner. The edges of the colours in your ColorMunki swatch also render more defined - eg the dark greens - than the colours in the IR swatch down the bottom of their test scene.

Barry have you run those same IR K-3 DNG's through the Pentax Digital Camera Utility 5 software that came with the camera? This is the most up-to-date K-3 DNG processor and also the 'official' tool for reading K-3 DNG's. I'd be interested to see if it knows some secrets about how to optimally render K-3 images, and if it can do better than ACR/Lightroom/RawTherapee.

No, I won't be using the Pentax software. Everything I shoot goes through Lightroom, and my tests are primarily for my own interests. I then publish them so that others can benefit, but I haven't time to do more general teats.

[Krusty Surfer]

Nice work!

It's interesting to see the Nikons are both underexposing. It's also good to see, as expected, that the red swatch has it's details and colours reproduced as accurately in the K-3 as in the Nikon's in the RAW.

It's also useful of course to keep reminding ourselves that these images are all 100% and 6400 ISO! Each camera is doing a very good job holding onto colour and detail despite this extremity of ISO.

The underexposure displayed in the two Nikons may relate to the tendency noted in DxoMark.com for those two Nikons to overstate their reported ISO compared to their actual, measured ISO - ie Dxomark says the measured ISO of the D7100 is actually about ISO 4500 when the manufacturer says it is 6400.

and i might add that the d7100 is shooting at 1600 and the K-3 at 800 /sec K-3 shutter is open twice as long so more noise.-right?

---------- Post added 11-14-14 at 02:54 AM ----------

wahid_satu, thanks for all the work. As far as IQ goes, it looks like there isn't much that separates these cameras.

clearly d600 image is head and shoulders above-why is this? PIXEL PITCH (how open the light well is)
the d600 is Full frame too not DX
K-3 and D7100 are tied on the interwebs as far as im concerned...
however-
when i took my K-3 into Norman camera a few days ago and compared K-3 with the D7100, the K-3 produced a cleaner better looking image on full auto(green square) both cameras fine JPG and the D7100 had a 50 F1.4 vs Pentax 50 f1.8
K-3 better auto focus, less searching, more accurate focus.
D7100 back focused slightly and hunted
and the K-3 nailed it! 13 of 15 images sharp and the Buffer on the K-3 is almost as good as the D750 FF!!!
8 fps is no slouch and if its a 80%+ keeper rate of in focus images...im tickled green then!
i am so happy (gloating)
Aloha

Aloha

[bxf]

You may, or may not have noticed that your post follows the previous one by about a week, plus a year

[normhead]

You may, or may not have noticed that your post follows the previous one by about a week, plus a year

Ya, but he had something important to say...

There are times when I get all involved in detail, and then come back a half hour later and can't see what i was seeing anymore. I'm convinced, every APS-c made today exceeds just about any standard a reasonable person would apply.

On that note… this is pretty exciting…. distinct line width down to 3000 lw/ph, extinction not until close to 4000. The K5IIs was line distinct lines to 2300 lw/ph. That would be a 30% increase in resolution. Based on a 50% increase in file size, that's simply awesome. You can only get about 25% better with a D800.



If trying to determine where extinction occurs doesn't give you a headache, I'm not sure what will. But it's well over 3000 lw/ph, I'd give it more than 31 but less than 32.

I like to have 100 lw/ph vertical depth per inch when printing… this should give you a nice 30x40 print.

Comparing the D7100 and K-3 side by side the D7100 appears to have the upper hand.

D7100: Digital Cameras, Nikon D7100 Digital Camera Test Image

K-3: Digital Cameras, Pentax K-3 Digital Camera Test Image